How Does President Trump Score on a Leadership Evaluation?

For over thirty years. I taught leadership in various roles. As the Director of the Illinois Law Enforcement Executive Institute, I promoted leadership programs for police executives. Prior to that, I was the Chairperson for the Western Illinois University Law Enforcement and Administration Department, administering an academic program that taught administrative skills. I personally taught courses on management and leadership. How does President Trump fare in an academic review of leadership traits? Across the major academic leadership models used in policing, public administration, and organizational psychology, Donald Trump aligns strongly with transactional, charismatic, and authoritarian leadership traits, and aligns poorly with transformational, servant, ethical, and participatory leadership styles. His leadership style is loyalty‑based, norm‑breaking, and highly personal, with tendencies that political scientists associate with authoritarian or “mob boss” style leadership.

Trump’s Leadership Traits as Compared to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Leadership Principles

PERF’s leadership philosophy rests on seven core beliefs or pillars.

Legitimacy & Procedural Justice
Accountability & Transparency
De‑escalation & Critical Decision‑Making
Community Engagement & Collaboration
Evidence‑Based Policing & Data‑Driven Leadership
Organizational Culture & Ethical Leadership
Wellness, Stability, and Predictability in Leadership

In the Legitimacy & Procedural Justice pillar are fairness, voice, transparency, impartiality, and respect for institutional norms. Trump’s leadership style is often described as adversarial, norm‑breaking, and loyalty‑based, which definitely conflicts with these legitimacy principles. Public attacks on institutions (courts, media, federal agencies) undermine the perceived fairness and neutrality that PERF considers foundational. Trump’s leadership is often unpredictable and personalized, which reduces institutional legitimacy. PERF’s criteria require predictability and consistency.

The second pillar, Accountability & Transparency, stresses clear standards, internal accountability, external transparency, and acceptance of oversight. Trump frequently frames oversight as politically motivated. He resists external constraints and emphasizes personal loyalty over institutional accountability. PERF’s model requires leaders to embrace scrutiny. Trump’s style tends to challenge or delegitimize oversight bodies.

The third pillar is De‑escalation & Critical Decision‑Making. PERF’s model emphasizes slowing situations down, tactical patience, information gathering, giving appropriate attention to data, and avoiding unnecessary escalation. Trump’s leadership is high‑energy, confrontational, and escalation‑prone. He often uses force, threat, or dominance as primary leadership tools. This is the opposite of PERF’s “slow down, stabilize, and think” approach. However, he does show decisiveness, which PERF values when paired with restraint. Yet, Trump’s decisiveness often accelerates rather than stabilize situations.

The fourth pillar is Community Engagement & Collaboration. PERF emphasizes shared problem‑solving, listening sessions, multi‑stakeholder governance, and coalition building. Trump’s style is follower based rather than coalition‑building. He tends to reward loyal constituencies and attack opposing groups. This conflicts with PERF’s emphasis on inclusive engagement. Collaboration requires shared leadership. But Trump’s style is centralized and personal.

The fifth pillar is Evidence‑Based Policing & Data‑Driven Leadership. PERF stresses research, data, best practices, continuous learning, and institutional expertise. Trump often prioritizes personal intuition, personal belief, and loyalty over institutional expertise. PERF’s model requires deference to subject‑matter experts. Trump frequently challenges expert opinions. His administration’s decision processes often bypass traditional analytic channels.

Pillar six is Organizational Culture & Ethical Leadership. PERF emphasizes ethical modeling, integrity, a merit‑based culture, stability, predictability, and respect for democratic norms. Trump’s leadership iss transactional, loyalty‑driven, and norm‑eroding. Ethical leadership requires consistency and fairness Trump’s style is personalized and variable. PERF stresses institutional stewardship. Trump often frames institutions as obstacles rather than assets.

Pillar number seven is Wellness, Stability, and Predictability. PERF stresses reducing organizational chaos, providing stable leadership, and protecting personnel from political turbulence. Trump’s style seems to project a strong command presence and clear direction. However, “clear direction” seems to shift from day to day. His leadership often produces high organizational turnover, rapid shifts, and public conflict, which are viewed as destabilizing.

Conclusion

Using the PERF leadership philosophy, Trump’s leadership traits would be considered high in command presence and decisiveness, but low in legitimacy, procedural justice, collaboration, and evidence‑based practice. There is little doubt that Trump rates high in charisma. However, he ranks low in institutional stewardship. He has a high focus on loyalty but would be rated low in ethical leadership. Loyal followers are often sacrificed to his cause. This makes him effective at mobilizing followers but misaligned with the principles that sustain legitimacy‑based leadership.

How Well Are ICE Officers Screened and Trained?

Training

ICE officers receive training that prepares them for various roles within the agency. There are differences in training length and focus depending on specific duties. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) officers receive more training than the Enforcement Removal Operations officers (ERO). Both receive less than Homeland Security Investigators (HIS). Officers receive a mix of classroom instruction, practical skills training, and ongoing field education, with training durations varying significantly between different roles within the agency.

Prior to January 2025, most ICE recruits attended training at a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The enforcement and Removal operations officers (ERO) had a training program just short of 8 weeks, which focused on operational tasks and safety in high-contact situations. Most of the training focused on locating, arresting, and removing illegal immigrants who have violated the law. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) candidates had a 90-day (12 week) academy experience. Specifically, these officers received training in firearms, driving skills, defensive tactics, and use of force. The training also included de-escalation techniques. There was heavy emphasis on immigration law, the Constitution, and criminal investigations. Officers were required to take a basic Spanish course or test out of the offering.

Unfortunately, the training for the new recruits has been substantially reduced to 47 hours due to the hiring surge needed to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. This reduction of hours for ERO officers from 320 to 47 creates an important question regarding officer readiness and public safety, especially in high stakes situations. The Spanish course was dropped from the curriculum.

Screening

Prior to 2025, background checks and psychological screening were consistent with hiring practices in most municipal departments. The process generally included a combination of clinical interviews and standardized psychological tests.

Of concern is the impact of the hiring surge on the level of background and psychological screening. Top of Form

According to multiple sources, ICErecruits are showing up for training with disqualifying criminal backgrounds. New hires are reportedly failing background checks, drug tests, and open-book tests (Alex Woodward, New York Times). Often times, new recruits are reportedly failing physical fitness requirements. Some new recruits are entering training programs before the agency performs background checks or finishes a screening process. ICE officials have discovered that some recruits failed drug testing or had disqualifying criminal backgrounds while they were already enrolled in training. At least one recruit at the agency’s training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, had been previously charged with strong-arm robbery and battery stemming from a domestic violence incident, according to a Homeland Security official. Some recruits had not submitted fingerprints or gone through any background checks at all before entering the six-week training course (NBC News).

“The loosening of hiring standards and training requirements is unacceptable and will likely result in increased officer misconduct — similar to or worse than what occurred during a small surge in hiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in the early 2000s,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He continued, “Exacerbating our concerns, DHS has gutted offices responsible for overseeing ICE officers and ensuring accountability for use-of-force incidents. Given these developments, greater congressional oversight of ICE’s hiring is essential.”

To boost recruitment, Homeland Security offers a “maximum $50,000 signing bonus” and student loan forgiveness. DHS also dropped age limit requirements, allowing people as young as 18 years old to apply and opening ICE to recruits older than 40 years old (The Atlantic). Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said that many new recruits are former law enforcement officers who go through a different hiring process. McLaughlin said the figures in above cited NBC’s report “reflect a subset of candidates in initial basic academy classes.”

How does the training of ICE officers compare to that provided by most police departments in America?

For all municipal police departments, the average duration of training for municipal officers ranges from 4 to 5 months, with an average of 672 hours. State Police Officer Standards and Training Boards (POST) require anywhere from 12 to 24 weeks. After graduation from the POST academy, most officer complete months of supervised training by a field training officer.

Most POST academies include the following in their core curriculum:

Constitutional & criminal law
Arrest/search/seizure procedures
Firearms training
Defensive tactics
Emergency vehicle operations
Report writing & courtroom testimony
Community policing principles
Use of technology (body cameras, digital evidence, databases)

The curriculum is updated regularly to include new laws, changes in technology, and changing police strategies. The academies also stress training in the use of force, and de-escalation techniques.

ICE Training Compared to Municipal Departments

Prior to January 2025, the training received by ICE ERO officers was closer to that received by municipal police recruits. However, 320 hours of training, which included instruction on Spanish, was still far below the municipal average of 672 hours. CBP training was 480 hours at the low end of the municipal training spectrum. Given the new 47-hour standard for ERO officers, is it any wonder that ICE officers are not performing well?

How the U.S. Compares Internationally

While the training of ICE ERO officers is far below the US municipal average, consider the fact that American police receive far less training than many countries where police training lasts 2–3 years (e.g., Finland, Norway, Germany). In 1994, an effort by the federal government attempted to increase the training to 2 years by incorporating traditional academy experiences with more classroom study. However, due to concerns over federal involvement in local police training, the program ended in 2009. The shorter training period for American police is often cited in debates about police professionalism, use‑of‑force outcomes, and public trust.

Conclusions

ICE ERO officers and CBP officers are NOT trained to deal with police situations or the public when they receive only 47 hours of training. Even the pre 2025 curriculum for CBP officers (480 hours) does not begin to properly prepare these officers for the job. The training of the ERO officers is not much more than a citizen in Illinois who gets a firearms permit. In Illinois, individuals must complete a 16-hour course from an Illinois State Police approved instructor. The course covers firearm safety, marksmanship, and Illinois firearms laws.

The ERO officers are not qualified to enforce customs laws and certainly not prepared to handle police situations. The training needs to be improved. Hiring practices need to be restored to pre-2025 levels. The current threat to defund ICE operations should be taken as a wakeup call. The entire organization needs to be reformed. Officers need more training than they currently receive.

We The People

I just finished reading In the Hands of the People: Thomas Jefferson on Equality, Faith, Freedom, Compromise, and the Art of Citizenship for the second time. Our small book club had decided to discuss it at our last meeting. While most of you probably do not need to hear the following, I am compelled to speak out to those who say, “It’s politics and I don’t want to get involved.” Or “I don’t want to have my life interrupted by all that bad news, so don’t talk about it.” Our Constitution starts with the familiar words, “We the People.” Our founding fathers’ vision was revolutionary. The government would be in the hands of the people, not kings or other individuals. They knew they were taking a chance. People were accustomed to having government make decisions for them, not having the option to make their own choices.

These same founding fathers, while holding doubts about the long-term viability of their creation, believed that a well-educated and informed people would make good choices in this republican system of representative democracy. Public education was supported by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and many others. Educated people who had access to information, whether biased or not, could and would make good decisions. With these dreams in mind, subsequent generations of Americans improved education and created a Fourth estate to provide good information even when it showed obvious bias. We the People were controlling our own destiny.

However, in recent years, complacency has become common. Many of the People have failed to keep fully informed, basing their judgment on biased or limited information. Our education system has reduced the amount of teaching in civics, history, and social sciences. There have been successful efforts to restrict information that does not conform to standards established by power groups. Too many citizens have failed to realize that the government that they are criticizing is a criticism of self. If you are not informed and engaged, if you fail to take part in your government, you have no justification for complaining.

Get informed. Know your sources of information. Research “hot topic” issues. Engage in civil discussions with your friends and acquaintances. Take time to know what your elected representatives believe. Take part in local, state, and federal elections. Don’t tell me “I don’t want to hear about it!”

Does the Department of Education Need to be Eliminated?

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. The order directs the department to reduce its size and transfer many of its responsibilities to states and other federal agencies. Programs like student loans, Pell Grants, and funding for students with disabilities should continue, but their administration might be shifted to other agencies over time. The move has sparked concerns about potential disruptions in federal education funding and services, especially for low-income and special-needs students.

In addition, President Trump has withheld funding for numerous federal agencies, as well as personnel cuts that Impact the operational effectiveness of those agencies. His initiatives to eliminate DEI have resulted in threats to various educational institutions that have been deemed in violation of his desire. His major targets have been high profile schools like Columbia. However, a number of regional universities are under investigation for discrimination tied to DEI programs.

While purportedly looking for a better investment, the Trump administration has lost sight of the fact that education isn’t about return on the dollar in test score numbers, but it is about children. Cuts to food and support programs should consider what happens when a child is hungry. The impact of housing support on living arrangements also impacts a student’s learning motivation. Our system of education is broken! Many children are in fact “left behind”. Education is good for the affluent, fair for the middle class, and substandard for people struggling to make ends meet. That is why 54% of Americans function a less than a 6^th grade level. With an overall literacy rate of 79%, the United States ranks 36^th. Most developed nations have literacy rates of 96% (National Literacy Institute, 2024-2025 Literacy Statistics).

Many of our competing countries, e.g., Finland, Canada, Japan, support early education with universal health and food support programs as well as support for counselors, mental health, basic human needs. Unfortunately, the United States is focused on outcomes through money spent of developing standardized tests. We often spend money to determine outcomes without providing adequate support for actual education. We don’t invest in teachers. Salaries are poor. Requirements for licensure are often costly and frequently not reimbursed by the school districts. Attracting college students to these poor paying teaching jobs has become increasingly difficult. Differences in taxing districts impact whether a school district invests in education or barely gets by. Wealthy districts can excel. Poor districts barely make their budget guidelines.

Too often, the United States has turned what should be an investment in humankind into a business venture. Spending more money doesn’t guarantee a better product. Our founding fathers stressed the need for a literate populace if their model democracy was going to survive. America has failed to maintain the gains in education achieved over the 20th century. The amount of money spent on buildings, extra-curricular activities and mandated curriculums has changed the focus from basic skills and understanding of our system of government to looking good on paper.

Downsizing with the intent to eliminate the Department of Education is as unfounded as most other downsizing initiatives underway under the Trump administration. There is no doubt that there is waste in our federal bureaucracies. This waste should be eliminated. However, the chainsaw approach offered by the Trump administration can do only what a chain saw does. The cuts are crude and dangerous. What is needed is a careful review of programs by independent experts. The recommendation then needs to be reviewed by Congress and their determination passed on to the Executive Branch.

The United States is not a business being run for profit. Although, in recent years it often looks like our elected representatives are there only to make money for themselves. The United States government is a service funded by the taxpayer for all American citizens.